Chapter 3 Research Methodology and Analytical Framework………………….48-68
3.4 The TWINS Framework: Key Analytical Concepts
technical cooperation, there may be shared goals on how to solve a specific water- related problem, but the action and policies of the actors may not necessarily be aligned.
iv) Risk-averting Cooperation or Common Norm Formation: Risk-averting cooperation or common norm formation happens when there is joint action and shared goals, in addition to the belief that the other actor will do as expected to execute the action, and the actors do not commit to or undertake the unforeseen costs in the future when committing to such action.
v) Risk-taking Cooperation or Collective Identity Formation: Risk-taking cooperation or collective identity formation happens when such costs and risks are taken into account by the states, and is considered as the highest and ideal form of cooperation in the TWINS cooperation intensity scale, as it is unlikely that the states will assume costs/risks without evident reciprocation.
(Wester 2008, cited in Mirumachi 2015). Speech acts are defined as verbal acts (Austin 1962, Searle 1969) as well as non-verbal acts (Frederking 2003), that helps create social facts, establish relations between nation-states and construct the rules of relationships (ibid).
The TWINS framework uses the analytical lens and concept of hydrocracy to focus on the elite decision-makers in influential positions within the nation-state who are responsible for water allocation and utilization actions in particular, and in a general manner, on transboundary river basins shared by the particular nation-state (Mirumachi 2015). The hydrocracy is described as a group of actors which are supported by politicians within a nation-state in order to influence and gain from river development projects (Molle et al. 2009). They are able to set the agenda of the nation-state through their technical expertise, which is facilitated by their ability to accumulate vast amounts of knowledge and information on river basins of their respective nation-state, and their access to national and international forums to deliberate and negotiate transboundary river water allocations (Mirumachi 2015).
While there are many other actors within and outside the nation-state which help frame water issues, such as donor agencies, international funding organizations, private businesses and contractors in the water resource management sector and local communities; the focus on the hydrocracy helps unpack the government machinery and avoids homogenization (Mirumachi 2015). The focus on agency of the elite decision- makers unravel the dynamics of how the nation-state enforces decisions and rally support on water resource management in the face of domestic or international criticism, and in turn reflect the machinations of the political economy of water allocation and use within
the nation-state or the transboundary river basin (ibid). The overall rationale and justifications of carrying out hydraulic interventions and changes by a nation-state in a transboundary river basin is explained by such agency focus.
In a transboundary river context, the management and governance of shared water resources are done through speech acts, which help the powerful nation-states in the transboundary river basin, socially construct structures (Mirumachi 2015). Speech acts leads to understanding the process of socialization, creating social order where the identities and interests of the nation-states change and develop through the employment and deployment of power (Wendt 1999, Klotz and Lynch 2007). Speech acts are assertive, for example public statements and declarations that signal reciprocal understanding between nation-states on an issue-area; directive, for example economic sanctions or military intimidation to secure compliance from other nation-state/s; and commissive, for example international agreements binding the nation-states to the content of such agreements (Duffy and Frederking 2009).
The speech acts are plotted in the TWINS matrix of conflict and cooperation as markers of the transboundary water interaction between nation-states, where conflict and cooperation intensities will increase or decrease depending on how such speech acts are perceived by the hydrocracy of the respective nation-states (Mirumachi 2015). A joint declaration on water quality improvement is an assertive speech act, unilaterally constructing hydraulic infrastructure or closing dam gates without consulting other riparian nation-states of the basin is an directive speech act, signing a bilateral or multilateral treaty on water sharing is a commissive speech act (ibid). The shared expectations about appropriate riparian behaviour held by nation-states or the
international system, on transboundary water interactions determine norms governing transboundary river basins (Finnemore 1996, Mirumachi 2015).
The process of socialization in transboundary river basins, when viewed through the lens of constructivist theory of international relations (Wendt 1999), requires the diffusion and adoption of such norms and ideas between nation-states sharing a transboundary river basin (Checkel 1999). Norms induce cooperative behaviour when they are collectively understood and adopted in policies (O’Neill et al. 2004). These norms are supported by ideas, known as public ideas, which help explain the nature of a social problem and the best possible manner to solve it (Ringius 2001). These norms and public ideas help inform the agenda, interests and policies of the nation-states sharing a transboundary river basin (ibid). Speech acts can be observed through a collection of documents, such as public declarations, legal documents, treaties and agreements, policy briefs, media reports, newspaper articles (Mirumachi 2015).